Technical Notes for Guidance on. Dossier Preparation including preparation and evaluation of study summaries

Technical Notes for Guidance on Dossier Preparation including preparation and evaluation of study summaries under Directive 98/8/EC Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market 28 March 2002 Short Title: TNsG on Preparation of Dossiers and Study Evaluation PART I DOSSIER PREPARATION ECB, February 2008 The Technical Notes for Guidance on Dossier Preparation including preparation and evaluation of study summaries that were previously published as individual chapters on the ECB website were formatted and edited in three individual parts in pdf format.

Part I: Technical Notes for Guidance for the Preparation and Presentation of Complete Dossiers for the Inclusion of Active Substances in Annex I, IA or IB of Directive 98/8/EC or for Authorisation or Registration of Biocidal Products (Dossier Preparation) Contents 1 General Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objective of the guidance on dossier preparation 1 1.2.1 Whom the guidance is for 1 1.2.2 Standardisation of dossier preparation 2 1.3 Principles of guidance 2 1.4 Reference documents to be consulted 3 1.4.1 Technical notes for guidance concerning the Biocidal Products Directive 3 1.4.1.1 Technical notes for guidance on data requirements 3 1.4.1.2 Technical notes for guidance on Annex I inclusion 4 1.4.1.3 Technical notes for guidance on Product Evaluation 4 1.4.1.4 Technical notes for guidance on Human Exposure 5 1.4.1.5 Technical notes for guidance on Environmental Emissions 5 1.4.2 Guidelines and criteria for the preparation of plant protection products dossiers 5 1.4.3 Technical guidance document on Risk Assessment for new and existing chemicals, and biocidal active substances 6 2 Documentation Required to Apply for the Annex I, IA or IB Inclusion of an Active Substance 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Dossier structure and content 7 2.2.1 Detailed structure of dossiers 9 3 Document IV - Original Test and Study Reports 11 3.1 Literature search 11 3.2 Test and study reports including published data 11 3.2.1 Use of literature data 11 3.3 Confidential data and information 12 4 Document III - Study Summaries 13 4.1 Purpose 13 4.2 Key Studies 13 4.2.1 Purpose of selection of key studies 14 4.2.2 Criteria for key studies 15 4.2.3 Toxicological studies 16 4.2.4 Ecotoxicological studies 18 Page iii

4.2.5 Studies which are not key studies 20 4.3 Numbering system of data requirements 21 4.4 Format 21 4.4.1 Use of standard formats for the preparation of study summaries21 4.4.1.1 Standard formats for combining several subsections 22 4.4.1.2 Standard formats for individual tests and studies 23 4.4.2 Standard form for justification for non-submission of data 26 4.4.3 All-in-one approach: use of applicant's study summaries by the competent authorities 29 4.5 Technical guidance on the creation of study summaries using standard formats 30 4.5.1 Principles 30 4.5.2 Explanations of main entry fields 31 4.5.2.1 Reference (including data protection claim) 31 4.5.2.2 Guidelines and quality assurance 33 4.5.2.3 Materials and methods 34 4.5.2.4 Results and discussion 35 4.5.2.5 Applicant's summary and conclusion 35 4.5.2.5.1 Reliability indicators 35 4.5.2.5.2 Deficiencies 36 4.6 Examples of study summaries 37 4.7 Check for completeness and quality 37 4.7.1 Check for completeness of documentation 37 4.7.2 Check for completeness and quality of data 37 4.7.2.1 Information / test /study provided 38 4.7.2.2 Justification 38 4.7.2.3 Confidential data 38 4.7.2.4 Reliability indicator 38 4.7.3 When the dossier is not yet complete 39 4.8 Reference lists 39 5 Document II - Risk Assessment 44 5.1 Purpose 44 5.2 Structure and format 45 5.2.1 Document II-A: Effects assessment active substance 46 5.2.2 Document II-B: Effects and exposure assessment biocidal product 47 5.2.3 Document II-C: Risk characterisation for the use of the active substance in biocidal products 48 5.3 Reference list 48 6 Document I - Overall Summary and Assessment 52 6.1 Purpose 52 6.2 Individual subdocuments 52 6.2.1 Application form (Doc. I.1) 52 6.2.2 Overall summary and conclusions (Doc. I.2) 53 6.2.3 Proposal for decision regarding Annex I, IA or IB inclusion (Doc. I.3) 53 6.2.4 Listing of end points 54 7 Standard Units, Codes, Terms and Abbreviations 55 7.1 Standard units 55 Page iv

7.2 Standard terms and abbreviations 55 7.3 Application codes 56 8 Submission of Dossiers 57 8.1 Hard copies 57 8.2 Electronic submission 57 8.2 Submission to other member states 57 9 Documentation required to Apply for the Authorisation or Registration of Biocidal Products 58 9.1 Introduction 58 9.2 Dossier structure 59 9.3 Risk assessment for biocidal products 59 Appendices 62 Appendices to Part I, Chapter 4: Appendix 4.1 Examples of study summaries 63 Appendix 4.2 Check for completeness and quality of data compiled in Doc. III-A 108 Appendix 4.3 Check for completeness and quality of data compiled in Doc. III-B 120 Appendices to Part I, Chapter 5: Appendix 5.1 Reporting format for Document II-A Effects assessment for the active substance 128 Appendix 5.2 Reporting format for Document II-B Effects and exposure assessment for biocidal product(s) 139 Appendix 5.3 Reporting format for Document II-C Risk characterisation for the use of the active substance in biocidal product(s) 146 Appendices to Part I, Chapter 6: Appendix 6.1 Application form 150 Appendix 6.2 Listing of end points 156 Appendices to Part I, Chapter 7: Appendix 7.1 List of standard terms and abbreviations 167 Appendix 7.2 Abbreviations of organisations and publications 175 Appendix 7.3 Application codes 179 Page v

1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION This Dossier Guidance focuses primarily on applications for the inclusion of active substances in Annex I, IA or IB. For information relating to applications for authorisation (or registration) of biocidal products, see chapter 9. 1.1 BACKGROUND In order to meet the requirements set out in Article 33 of the Biocidal Products Directive 98/8/EC (BPD), the European Commission has prepared, in co-operation with the Member States, Technical Notes for Guidance (TNsG) to facilitate the dayto-day implementation of this Directive. As described below (chapter 1.4), there are a number of TNsG intended to provide guidance on what is required for both the applicant and the competent authorities in terms of the submission and assessment of studies and all information required by the BPD. This TNsG is intended to give guidance on how the documentation to be submitted by the applicant should be prepared and presented. Regarding study summaries, sample formats have been prepared and are presented in Part III of the TNsG. All required data have to be addressed and must be presented in this type of format. 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE GUIDANCE ON DOSSIER PREPARATION 1.2.1 Whom the guidance is for The Dossier Guidance only refers to chemical substances and not to biocidal fungi, micro-organisms and viruses (some guidance relating to these may be found in documents prepared for Directive 91/414/EC), and is intended for use by: those making applications for the inclusion of active substances in Annex I, IA or IB to the BPD; Page 1

other interested parties wishing to submit information for the review or renewal of any Annex I inclusion. The approach aims at a uniform structure of the documentation of both the applicant's dossier and the competent authorities' report as further outlined in chapter 2.2.1. Hence, the Dossier Guidance should also be consulted by the competent authorities. 1.2.2 Standardisation of dossier preparation The objective of this TNsG on Dossier Preparation is to provide guidance on how the requirements given by the BPD are to be fulfiled in a harmonised and, as far as possible, standardised procedure. Thus, this guidance aims at: supporting the applicant in preparing the complete documentation required for a dossier including a check for completeness and quality; supporting the applicant in summarising and evaluating the tests and studies and other data submitted or, if necessary, in justifying the non-submission of data; advising the applicant to report and justify, if necessary, any deviations from standard study protocols as well as deficiencies; facilitating the evaluation of the dossier to be performed by the Rapporteur Member State and Competent Authorities and hence, the decision-making by the the regulatory authorities. Notwithstanding this standardisation, the use of expert judgement is required. 1.3 PRINCIPLES OF GUIDANCE The TNsG on Dossier Preparation gives guidance on the following items: General structure and content of the documentation required for a complete dossier which consists of a summary dossier and the test and study reports. Some of this information may be confidential; Structure, format and lay-out of the individual document types. Page 2

The applicants are guided through the preparation of the dossier. For each dossier document required the purpose is explained and the format to be used is proposed. In some cases, fixed forms are provided, for example the Application Form, Justification Form or Check for Completeness. Particularly for summarising individual tests and studies, standard formats are provided which should be used by the applicant to the extent that is practicable and feasible, keeping in mind that modifications, particularly in the form of additions, should be undertaken (see chapter 4). 1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSULTED 1.4.1 Technical notes for guidance concerning the Biocidal Products Directive A number of specific Technical Notes for Guidance drafted for the European Commission should be thoroughly consulted by the applicant when preparing dossiers. The TNsGs are intended to explain the requirements laid down in the BPD, including the principles of evaluation and assessment. This TNsG on Dossier Preparation has been based on these TNsG, particularly on the TNsG on data requirements. The TNsG addresses only active substances and biocidal products defined as chemical substances. Fungi, microorganisms and viruses (Annex IV of the BPD) are not addressed. The scope and objectives of the TNsG are briefly described as follows. 1.4.1.1 Technical notes for guidance on data requirements TNsG on data requirements: Technical Notes for Guidance in Support of the Directive 98/8/EC Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market - Guidance on Data Requirements for Active Substances and Biocidal Products This TNsG provides detailed and practical guidance particularly to the applicants, but also to competent authorities, on which studies or other data are required in accordance with the BPD. Page 3

The data requirements for the common core data and the product type-specific additional data are given in detail. Guidance is given on the data requirements for substances of concern and in consideration of the simplified procedures. Guidance is given on documenting the non-submission of data. This TNsG is available from the web site of the ECB at http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/ 1.4.1.2 Technical notes for guidance on Annex I inclusion TNsG on Annex I inclusion: Technical Notes for Guidance on the Inclusion of Active Substances in Annexes I, IA and IB of the Biocidal Products Directive This TNsG proposes a rationale for the inclusion of active chemical substances in Annexes I, IA and IB. The guidance is primarily for the competent authorities of the Member States designated to assess the active substances and biocidal products, but is also for the applicant. Little emphasis is placed on efficacy of the active substance itself as this is more relevant at the product level. Guidance is given on relevant aspects concerning risk characterisation. Guidance on the assessment of the potential for resistance is also given. This TNsG is available from the web site of the ECB at http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/ 1.4.1.3 Technical notes for guidance on product evaluation TNsG on product evaluation: Technical Notes for Guidance in Support of Annex VI of the Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and the Council Concerning the Placing of Biocidal Products on the Market This TNsG is intended to explain the Common Principles laid down in Annex VI of the BPD. Guidance is given on the risk and efficacy assessment of individual biocidal products, assuming that all active substances present in the product are already included in Annex I of BPD. Page 4

The TNsG is intended for use by the competent authorities, but also for the applicant. The document focuses on how to use study results to reach an authorisation decision, but does not cover how to appraise data for every end point listed in Annexes II and III of the BPD. This TNsG is expected to be available from the web site of the ECB at http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/ 1.4.1.4 Technical notes for guidance on human exposure The TNsG on human exposure lists the models available for estimating the human exposure to active substances in the biocidal products, and where possible it also gives measured data. The document is in preparation (2002) and when a final draft is available it will be placed on the ECB web site. This TNsG is expected to be available from the web site of the ECB at http://ecb.jrc.it/biocides/ 1.4.1.5 Technical notes for guidance for environmental emissions The environmental emission scenarios are integrated as part of the TGD on Risk Assessment. Further development of scenarios is on-going (year 2002-2003) and when a final draft of a scenario is available it will be placed on the ECB web site. 1.4.2 Guidelines and criteria for the preparation of plant protection products dossiers Many elements of this Dossier Guidance are similar to the corresponding PPP approach. Some have even been adopted. The following Guidelines give guidance on how to prepare dossiers for PPP: EU (1998a): European Commission: Guidelines and criteria for the preparation of complete dossiers and of summary dossiers for the inclusion of active substances in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EC (Article 5.3 and 8,2). Document 1663/VI/94 Rev 8, 22 April 1998 Page 5

1.4.3 Technical guidance document on risk assessment for new and existing chemicals, and biocidal active substances The following Technical Guidance Document (TGD) gives guidance on how to prepare risk assessments for new and existing substances and biocidal active substances. The version available while drafting this TNsG was: European Chemicals Bureau, ECB (1996) Technical Guidance Documents in support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and the Commission Regulation (EC) 1488/94 for existing substances The updated version is European Chemicals Bureau, ECB (2002) Technical Guidance Documents in support of the Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and the Commission Regulation (EC) 1488/94 for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. The following parts of the TGD will be used for Biocides : the full environmental part, and the hazard assessment part for the toxicological assessment. Where an assessment of exposure during manufacture is relevant for Biocides the TGD should be followed. Page 6

2 DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR THE ANNEX I, IA OR IB INCLUSION OF AN ACTIVE SUBSTANCE 2.1 INTRODUCTION The data required, as set out in the BPD and specified in the TNsG on data requirements, are to be summarised by the applicant to form the basis for the evaluation and the decision-making process of the regulatory authorities. The applicant's preliminary risk assessment should result in a proposal for a decision, the rationale of which should be given in an overall summary and assessment. All this information comprises the so-called summary dossier of an application which, together with copies of the original test and study reports, form the complete dossier to be submitted to the Rapporteur Member State. After the receiving competent authority has accepted the dossier, the applicant has, according to Article 11.1(b) of the BPD, to forward a "summary of the dossiers" to the Commission and the other Member States. Hence, all dossier documents except for the original test and study reports are to be forwarded (see also chapter 8). 2.2 DOSSIER STRUCTURE AND CONTENT The production of a full dossier requires the preparation of a number of different documents, as depicted in Fig. 2-1a. Page 7

Fig. 2-1a Complete Dossier Summary Dossier Fig. 2-1. Structure of (a) applicant's dossier and (b) CAs' report CAs' Report Fig. 2-1b Doc. I Overall Summary and Assessment 1) Doc. I Evaluation Report 1) Doc. II Risk Assessment Doc. II-C Risk Characterisation for Use of A.S. in B.P.(s) Doc. II Risk Assessment Doc. II-C Risk Characterisation for Use of A.S. in B.P.(s) Doc II-A Effects and Exposure 3) Assessment Active Substance 2) Doc II-B Effects and Exposure Assess. Biocidal Prod.(s) 2) Doc II-A Effects and Exposure 3) Assessment Active Substance 2) Doc II-B Effects and Exposure Assess. Biocidal Prod.(s) 2) Document III-A Study Summaries Active Substance 2) Document III-B Study Summaries Biocidal Product(s) 2) Document III-A Study Summaries Active Substance 2) Document III-B Study Summaries Biocidal Product(s) 2) 1) To append: List of end points List of abbreviations Check for completeness 2) To append: Reference lists 1) To include: I.1 Subject Matter 2) To append: Reference lists I.2 Overall Summary and Conclusions I.3 Proposal for Decision Re. Annex I, IA, IB Inclusion Appendix: List of end points.; Appendix: List of abbreviations Doc. IV-A: Test and Study Reports a.s. Doc. IV-B: Test and Study Reports b.p.(s) Initial check for completeness of dossiers 3) This should address in particular cumulative exposure and exposure during manufacture

Because the report to be prepared by the competent authorities is an overall evaluation of the applicant's dossier, the elements of the dossier and the CAs' report are principally the same, except for specific statements given by the authorities, e.g. the proposed decision regarding the inclusion of an active substance in Annex I to the BPD. Therefore a uniform overall structure of documentation has been developed, as shown in Fig. 2-1a and Fig. 2-1b. This structure offers the advantage that: the number of main documents is reasonably small; the corresponding documents of both dossier and CAs' report have the same numbers and, except for DOCUMENT I, the same nomenclature; for the distinction between documents on the active substance (AS) and those on biocidal products (BP) the suffixes "A" and "B" are continuously used and correspond to those used in the BPD itself; for the distinction between proposed uses of biocidal products e.g. in different product types, the B documents can be assigned suffixes "B1", "B2" etc. 2.2.1 Detailed structure of dossiers The detailed structure of the dossier documentation is shown in Table 2-1. The purpose, structure and format of the different documents, subdocuments and appendices are further described in the following chapters 3 to 6, in the order of dossier preparation and not in the order appearing in Table 2-1. Page 9

Table 2-1: Detailed structure of dossier documentation Document type DOCUMENT I OVERALL SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT Subdocument I.1 Application form Appendices, if relevant: - Documentation relating to the joint submission DOCUMENT RISK ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT STUDY SUMMARIES II III I.2 Overall summary and conclusions Appendices: - Listing of end points - List of terms and abbreviations - Check for completeness - Active substance - Check for completeness - Biocidal product(s) I.3 Proposal for decision regarding Annex I, IA or IB inclusion II-A Effects and exposure assessment - Active substance II-B Effects and exposure assessment - Biocidal product II-C Risk characterisation for the use of the active substance in biocidal product(s) Appendices: - Reference lists III-A Study summaries - Active substance III-B Study summaries - Biocidal product(s) Appendices: - Reference lists - Confidential data and information (if applicable) DOCUMENT IV ORIGINAL TEST AND STUDY REPORTS IV-A Original test and study reports - Active substance IV-B Original test and study reports - Biocidal product*) Appendices, if applicable: - Profile and results of literature search Page 10

3 DOCUMENT IV - ORIGINAL TEST AND STUDY REPORTS 3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH The applicant has to compile the data and information required in accordance with the BPD. If they are of adequate quality, unpublished test and study reports available to the applicant, other non published data or published data may be used to fulfil the BPD data requirements. The applicant should conduct a detailed literature search to ensure that all relevant data and information can be provided with the dossier. It is recommended to append copies of the profile and the results of such literature searches to Document IV-A and IV-B. This can avoid duplication of work by the competent authorities of the Rapporteur Member State, who can then limit their own literature search to specific data gaps, if appropriate. 3.2 TEST AND STUDY REPORTS INCLUDING PUBLISHED DATA DOCUMENT IV-A (for the active substance) and DOCUMENT IV-B (for biocidal products) should contain copies of all original test and study reports and of any other information compiled and summarised in the entire dossier. For the submission of these documents in electronic format see chapter 8. 3.2.1 Use of literature data Tt is agreed that in principle literature data may be used under the following conditions: Literature data may be used if they comply with the rules of article 8 of Directive 98/8/EC. Furthermore, the identity, purity and the impurities of the substance have to be defined in the publication and to be comparable with the notified substance. Page 11

The test must have been conducted according to international guidelines (e.g. EU or OECD) and GLP is also an important issue. Deviations should be justified (cf Art. 8 (8) and (9) of Directive 98/8/EC). The reporting of the study should allow evaluation of the quality of the study. The final decision on acceptance of literature data will be taken by the Rapporteur Member State after consultation with the other Member States and the Commission. 3.3 CONFIDENTIAL DATA AND INFORMATION An applicant may indicate commercially sensitive information as confidential. This information should be included as Appendices to Document III-A and/or III-B. Information accepted by the receiving Rapporteur as being confidential will be treated as such by the competent authorities and the European Commission. The criteria applying on whether data can be claimed as confidential are given in Article 19 of the BPD. For further guidance see TNsG on Product Evaluation. Page 12

4 DOCUMENT III - STUDY SUMMARIES 4.1 PURPOSE The applicant has to summarise the data and information provided with Document IV-A and IV-B. These STUDY SUMMARIES provide the general basis for the further evaluation and assessment of the data submitted. The objective of the STUDY SUMMARIES is: to present comprehensive summaries of test and key studies and any other information required according to the BPD; to evaluate the data provided as to their validity, i.e. acceptability of the quality, in order to facilitate the checking of dossiers for completeness, compliance with standard test guidelines and, where relevant, GLP or, in the case of tests not conducted according to accepted guidelines, the suitability of test methods; to allow the competent authorities to use the applicant's study summaries in a socalled all-in-one approach (see chapter 4.4.3). As stated in the BPD, the different sections should be summarised and evaluated. As explained in chapter 5, there is a clear-cut distinction between the STUDY SUMMARIES (Doc. III level), which do not contain any summaries of the end points or sections and the hazard and risk assessment parts. Hence, any summaries of the end points or sections are covered by the hazard identification part (Doc. II-A and II-B) of the RISK ASSESSMENT documentation. 4.2 KEY STUDIES The Biocidal Products Directive requires that at least for the endpoints given in Annex IIA and IIB of the BPD at least one acceptable study or a justification for non-submission of data should be available. This common core data set is regarded to be the minimum required for all substances and Page 13

product types. Some of the toxicological and ecotoxicological data requirements may be waived. Studies for the endpoints in Annex IIIA and IIIB of the BPD may also be relevant. These additional data requirements are triggered by of the (eco)toxicological properties of a substance and the Product Type and the expected exposure (estimation of potential or actual exposure of the active substance to humans or the environment, or animals through food and feeding stuffs and other means). In addition to the core and additional data required, the applicant must submit any additional available data, which is relevant to the risk assessment. This means that normally all valid studies per endpoint should be submitted. A key study is a study regarded as sufficient and adequate to use for the risk assessment, and a key study must be summarised according to the study formats given in the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. If no key study for any endpoint of the core data set and the relevant additional data requirements can be identified, then an additional study has to be performed (if no satisfactory justification for waiving of these (eco)toxicological data is given). 4.2.1 Purpose of Selection of key studies When several reports are available on a specific endpoint (maybe using different species or routes of exposure), they can be used together to derive a more sound risk assessment. However, they can also originate from different periods of time and laboratories, they can be of different qualities and can be performed according to different guidelines and so each study s value to the risk assessment has to be judged individually. This range of studies occurs more commonly for existing substances. Making detailed study summaries for all these studies could, therefore, be unnecessary and cause a tremendous amount of work not only for the applicant but also for the Competent Page 14

Authority. For risk assessment normally only studies compliant with GLP, where relevant, and test guidelines are taken into account, whereas the other studies may either serve only to confirm the assessment or may not be used because they are not relevant or adequate. In view of the above, a key study concept may be useful to distinguish the studies that need summarising in detail from those that do not, thereby reducing the workload at least for the preparation of dossiers and evaluations. 4.2.2. Criteria for key studies The prerequisites for a key study concept related to toxicological and ecotoxicological studies are that it: a) is in accordance with principles laid down in the relevant Test-Guidelines, including GLP wherever possible, the Technical Notes for Guidance on Data Requirements and the Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment; b) is a tiered, transparent approach that ensures that at least one reliable study is defined as key study for each relevant endpoint; c) has a certain flexibility to allow for special data conditions and risk assessment requirements following consultations with a Competent Authority. Identifying the key study is an iterative procedure where the study reports available are pre-evaluated, the most critical one is chosen and if it cannot be used as key study then the next study is scrutinised to assess if this would then be a key study. If in a non-key study the results are more critical than in the key study, then a robust study summary with full description of the method should be prepared. Figure 1 gives a decision tree for defining a key study and its level of detail. Page 15

Pre-evaluate available study reports (starting with most critical study) Detailed study summary Yes Key Study? NO Other adequate Less adequate study/ According to NO Detailed study summary with full description of methods Yes Results more NO Detailed study summary with description of methods if deviating from guideline Study summary with IUCLID screening level of detail. Fig. 1.-Decision tree for defining level of detail for studies (adapted from Joint Final Project Report on the Pilot evaluations on existing biocidal active substance, Sept 2001) 4.2.3 Toxicological studies 1) If there are several reliable tests (for example, for acute oral toxicity testing on the same species), the most appropriate test should be summarised as key study. The key study for a specific endpoint is normally defined as the study, which results in the lowest no-effect value (below which no effects were seen for that endpoint in that or any other similar study) and/or the lowest effect dose (e.g. LD 50 or LC 50 indicating highest toxicity) except where scientific evidence and the characteristic signs of toxicity for Page 16

the substance in the relevant species indicates the contrary. The most sensitive species, among the relevant species, should normally be used. 2) A short summary (including the key results and an indication of the validity) of all studies performed must be provided in the IUCLID database. Based on the IUCLID study summaries (and a table comparing studies if this is useful), the key study should be selected, justified and summarised in greater detail according to the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. If there are several reliable studies based on different test guidelines on the same endpoint, the key study should be selected from the method with the highest sensitivity (for example, a Magnusson and Kligman test instead of a Buehler test). It might be necessary for several studies to be considered as key studies for the same endpoint (for example, when data is available on several species or different routes of exposure or if different results are observed in valid tests). In any case, all studies with positive findings for the endpoints mutagenicity, carcinogenicity and teratogenicity must be summarised using the format given in the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. 3) All data for key studies should be of an acceptable quality. However, flexibility is also necessary. If they are crucial or supporting special risk assessment aspects some studies with deficiencies may also be regarded as key studies and require a study summary as given in the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. For example this could apply to non-guideline studies, to studies on endpoints which are not specifically required by the BPD, or even to literature data if their result is crucial for risk assessment. This would particularly apply to all carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity studies with positive results, but could also be relevant for studies on sensitive sub-populations or mechanisms of action. The relevance of these results to the final risk assessment and the proposals for classification and labelling can then be fully assessed and their use or exclusion justified in the evaluation. Page 17

The data submitted by the applicant must be sufficient for a proper risk assessment and decision making. Therefore, the applicant should consult a Competent Authority at an early stage on which data should be submitted as key studies. The selection of key studies should be also indicated for the Completeness check. 4.2.4 Eoctoxicological studies 1) A short summary (including the key results and an indication of the validity) of all studies performed must be provided in the IUCLID database. Based on the IUCLID study summaries (and a table comparing studies if this useful), the key study should be selected, justified and summarised in greater detail according to the format given in the TNsG Dossier on Preparation and Study Evaluation. If there are several reliable studies based on different test guidelines on the same endpoint, the key study should be selected from the method with the highest sensitivity. It might be necessary for several studies to be considered as key studies for the same endpoint (for example, when data is available on several species or if different results are observed in valid tests). 2) All data for key studies should be of an acceptable quality. However, flexibility is also necessary. If they are crucial or supporting special risk assessment aspects some studies with deficiencies may also be regarded as key studies and require a study summary given in the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. For example this could apply to non-guideline studies, to studies on endpoints which are not specifically required by the BPD, or even to literature data if their result is crucial for risk assessment. In the field of ecotoxicity the TGD principles of environmental risk assessment focus on the most critical value for each endpoint. That means for choosing the key study when more than one LC 50 /EC 50 values is available that the lowest data from a valid study has to be chosen for PNEC derivation. The key study is therefore defined as the study, which results in this lowest value. Page 18

When using statistical extrapolation techniques in deriving the NOEC value for the environmental risk assessment of a substance according to the TGD on Risk Assessment, all the results used in this extrapolation should be summarised at least as studies which are not key studies. For large ecotoxicological data sets mean values can only be used according to the rules given in the TGD. 3) Flexibility is important in many cases for which examples are given below: Divergent data Divergent data can occur if only a qualitative result of a test is given (e.g. readily biodegradable) and tests with different evaluations occur, or if one or two quantitative data (if one LC 50 is considerably below the other one). In the case of divergent data at least one of each has to be covered by a detailed study summary according to the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation, looking for the validity of the data. Decision-making if both data are valid goes beyond the scope of this paper. Large (and homogenous) data sets for one endpoint For large and not divergent data sets other approaches than to choose the lowest value can be taken into account. Normally this requires that all studies are summarised in detail; however in some cases one detailed study summary of a representative and "foreseeable good quality" (e.g. a recent GLP and Guideline study) can be sufficient. Data sets mean values can also be used according to the rules given in the TGD on Risk Assessment. Supportive studies for risk assessment purposes If they are crucial or supporting special risk assessment aspects, studies are, in any case, regarded as key studies and require a detailed study summary according to the TNsG on Dossier Preparation and Study Evaluation. This can for example apply also to non-guideline studies, to studies on endpoints Page 19

which are not required by the BPD, or even to literature data, if they are used instead of own studies or their result is crucial for risk assessment. 4.2.5 Studies which are not key studies These studies have to be summarised in the IUCLID database and more detailed summaries using the TNsG on Dossier Prepartion and Study Evaluation must be made available if necessary, for example if the results are more critical than in the key study. The IUCLID summaries must at least include: Name of the study (headline of the literature or unpublished documents) Substance (origin and impurities of substance used in test) Year of origin (start and finalization of the study, if given in the study report) Source (e.g. Company name, report no., performing lab., or quotation of the literature) Acceptability and test method (including GLP-status and test guideline, if appropriate) Results/threshold dose levels (measured or nominal data; key results, including LD 50, LC 50, NOAEL, LOAEL). If certain information is not available this should be flagged by the statement not available. Results ecotoxicology (key results, including both LC/EC/IC 50 and NOEC where available). Analytical techniques and limit of determination Page 20

4.3 NUMBERING SYSTEM OF DATA REQUIREMENTS The numbering system in the document type STUDY SUMMARIES is equivalent to that used in the TNsG on data requirements because this TNsG is to serve as a basis document for the applicant. In some (sub)sections a further substructuring is required, for example in the section on identity of active substance. However, this does not affect the overall numbering system or the cross-referencing to the TNsG on data requirements. Table 1 and Table 2 preceding the standard formats given in Part III of this TNsG give an overview of the sections and section numbers used for DOCUMENT III-A and DOCUMENT III-B. For comparison, the corresponding BPD Annex Points are listed in these tables. Corresponding to the TNsG on data requirements, data from the common core data set (BPD Annex IIA or IIB) and the additional data set (BPD Annex IIIA or IIIB) are integrated in Doc. III-A and Doc. III-B, respectively. Table 1 and Table 2 in Part III also give guidance on which standard formats are available or, if not available for a specific subsection, are recommended to be used or adapted. 4.4 FORMAT 4.4.1 Use of standard formats for the preparation of study summaries The standardised formats provided in Part III of this TNsG should be used as far as possible for the preparation of the required summaries of individual test and study reports for the key studies. It should be stressed that these formats are not to be considered as fixed forms, but should be adapted and expanded if necessary. Sections 4.4 and 4.5 give technical guidance (section 4.4) and examples (section 4.5 and appendix 4.1) on formats. Unless a justification for non-submission is given (see chapter 4.4.2), the applicant must provide data and information for each subsection of Doc. III-A or III-B: by means of a standard format or several standard formats, if more than one test or study is presented for a specific end point; Page 21

by means of creating new formats taking into account the overall structure and format of the standard formats given in this Dossier Guidance, if no specific standard formats are available; by including data in an informal way, if no specific standard formats can be used. Many standard formats can be used for different subsections as indicated in the overview tables Table 1 and Table 2 in Part III. For example, the same standard format can be used for short-term repeated dose toxicity, subchronic toxicity and chronic toxicity. The standard formats are intended to facilitate the checks to be carried out to ensure a high quality and the completeness of all required information and thus, to facilitate the evaluation process by the competent authorities. Where necessary, the applicant should deviate from the proposed schemes. A special study design may also require special presentation. If relevant items are not addressed in the standard formats, the applicant should add those as appropriate. In addition, tables should be created as far as possible to present detailed information in a concise form. Much time and effort can be saved if the test laboratories are asked to produce their study reports directly in the standard formats. In principle two different types of standard formats are provided for summarising test and study reports and any other data required. 4.4.1.1 Standard formats for combining several subsections This type is provided particularly for the presentation of data from sections 2 (identity) and 3 (physical and chemical properties) and combines several subsections. This appears to be appropriate as each subsection consists of names, short statements or figures only. Standard methods are widely applied for the determination of the physical and chemical properties of substances, which do not require an in-depth description. In addition, this condensed format gives an quick overview of the substance's identity and physico-chemical properties. Page 22

4.4.1.2 Standard formats for individual tests and studies As shown in the standard format presented in Table 4-1, this type has the following lay-out and structure: Section heading (with consecutive number of reference concerning the same section number in parentheses) Cross-reference to BPD Annex Point Cross-reference to TNsG(s) (only if other than TNsG on data requirements) Structured form covering the main items such as: - REFERENCE (including data protection) - GUIDELINES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (including GLP status) - MATERIALS AND METHODS - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - APPLICANT'S SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Fields and subfields common to most standard formats, e.g. field "2.1 Guideline study" End point specific fields and subfields with specific guidance and, where appropriate illustration by means of example texts or default options Separate areas for official use by competent authorities of the Rapporteur Member State and to track comments from other Members States: - Commentary column for indicating any discrepancies or deficiencies - Evaluation box: EVALUATION BY COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Page 23

Table 4-1: Standard format for summarising individual tests and studies where appropriate Section xyz (Ref. no) Annex Point/TNsG (Sub)heading (specify where appropriate, e.g. species) 1 REFERENCE 1.1 Reference Author(s), year, title, laboratory name, laboratory report number, report date (if published, list journal name, volume: pages) If necessary, copy field and enter other reference(s). 1.2 Data protection Yes/No (indicate if data protection is claimed) 1.2.1 Data owner Give name of company 1.2.3 Criteria for data protection Choose one of the following criteria (see also TNsG on Product Evaluation) and delete the others: A note on data protection is under preparation by the Competent Authorities (June 2002). When published it should be followed Data on new [a.s. / b.p.] for [first entry to Annex I/IA / authorisation] Data on existing [a.s. / b.p.] submitted under national legislation [entry into Annex I/IA / authorisation] Data on existing [a.s. / b.p.] submitted for the first time for [entry into Annex I/IA / authorisation] Data on existing or new [a.s. / b.p.] to [maintain or vary a.s. Annex I/IA entry / vary conditions of a b.p.'s authorisation] No data protection claimed Official use only 2.1 Guideline study Yes/No 2.2 GLP (only where required) 2 GUIDELINES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (If yes, give references to the guidelines (for example test number in Annex V of Dir. 67/548/EEC); if no, give justification, e.g. "no guidelines available" or "methods used comparable to guidelines xy") Yes/No 2.3 Deviations Yes/No 3.1 Test material (If no, give justification, e.g. state that GLP was not compulsory at the time the study was performed) (If yes, describe deviations from test guidelines or refer to respective field numbers where these are described, e.g. "see 3.x.y") 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS In some fields the values indicated in the EC or OECD test guidelines are given as default values. Adopt, change or delete these default values as appropriate. 3.1.1 Lot/Batch number List lot/batch number where relevant Page 24

Section xyz (Ref. no) Annex Point/TNsG (Sub)heading (specify where appropriate, e.g. species) 3.1.2 Specification As given in section II of Annex IIA of Directive 98/8/EC, especially 2.7 and 2.8 of Annex IIA. Deviating from specification above as follows (describe specification under separate subheadings, such as the following; additional subheadings may be appropriate): 3.1.3 Description If appropriate, give e.g. colour, physical form (e.g. powder, grain size, particle size/distribution) 3.1.4 Purity Give purity in g/kg, g/l, %w/w or % v/v active substance 3.1.5 Stability Describe stability of test material 3.2 xxx Headings and subheadings study type-specific 4 RESULTS 4.1 xxx Headings and subheadings study type-specific 4.2 yyy 5.1 Materials and methods 5.2 Results and discussion 5 APPLICANT'S SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Give concise description of method; give test guidelines no. and discuss relevant deviations from test guidelines. Comments from 2.1above are relevant in this table. Summarise relevant results; discuss dose-response relationship where relevant. 5.3 Conclusion Subsections for NOAEL, LOAEL etc. if appropriate 5.3.1 Reliability Based on the assessment of materials and methods include appropriate reliability indicator 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 5.3.2 Deficiencies No/Yes (If yes, discuss the impact of deficiencies and implications on results. If relevant, justify acceptability of study.) Evaluation by Competent Authorities Use separate "evaluation boxes" to provide transparency as to the comments and views submitted Date Materials and Methods Results and discussion EVALUATION BY RAPPORTEUR MEMBER STATE Give date of action Adopt applicant's version or include revised version. If necessary, discuss relevant discrepancies referring to the (sub)heading numbers and to applicant's summary and conclusion. Adopt applicant's version or include revised version. If necessary, discuss relevant deviations from applicant's view referring to the (sub)heading numbers Page 25

Section xyz (Ref. no) Annex Point/TNsG Conclusion Reliability Acceptability Remarks Date Materials and Methods Results and discussion Conclusion Reliability Acceptability (Sub)heading (specify where appropriate, e.g. species) Adopt applicant's version or include revised version Based on the assessment of materials and methods include appropriate reliability indicator (the text in section 4.4.2.5.1 gives guidance on this point) acceptable / not acceptable (give reasons if necessary, e.g. if a study is considered acceptable despite a poor reliability indicator. Discuss the relevance of deficiencies and indicate if repeat is necessary.) COMMENTS FROM Give date of the comments submitted Discuss additional relevant discrepancies referring to the (sub)heading numbers and to applicant's summary and conclusion. Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state 4.4.2 Standard form for justification for non-submission of data Article 8.5 of the BPD regulates the possible non-submission of data. If supported by an acceptable justification, information need not be supplied if it is not necessary "owing to the nature of the biocidal product or of its proposed uses" or in cases "where it is not scientifically necessary or technically possible". For guidance on the possible non-submission of data see the TNsG on data requirements. For the sake of clarity, all (sub)sections referring to the BPD Annex II or III Points should be addressed in the STUDY SUMMARIES either by: providing data and information as outlined above or by providing a justification form as given in Table 4-2, if the non-submission of specific data can be reasonably justified. The justification forms should substitute the standard formats designated for particular subsections and take their position in Document III. Page 26

This approach offers the advantage that both the applicant and the competent authorities can easily check the data base without having to look up different files. In addition, the check for completeness (see chapter 4.7) will be facilitated. For the case where the applicant has charged a test laboratory to conduct a missing test or study, please refer to section 4.6.3. A justification will not be sufficient if it only states that information for a particular endpoint is not required or not relevant. While the justification should be concise and to the point, it should also be long and detailed enough for the reader to be able to decide the case for themselves. Supporting information can be provided in annexes if necessary. Page 27

Table 4-2: Standard form for justification of the non-submission of data Section x.y Annex Point x.y (Sub)heading (specify where appropriate) JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF DATA As outlined in the TNsG on data requirements, the applicant must always be able to justify the suggested exemptions from the data requirements. The justifications are to be included in the respective location (section) of the dossier. If one of the following reasons is marked, detailed justification has to be given below. General arguments are not acceptable Other existing data [ ] Technically not feasible [ ] Scientifically unjustified [ ] Limited exposure [ ] Other justification [ ] Official use only Detailed justification: Undertaking of intended data submission [ ] Give date on which the data will be handed in later (Only acceptable if test or study is already being conducted and the responsible CA has agreed on the delayed data submission.) Date Evaluation of applicant's justification Conclusion Remarks Date Evaluation of applicant's justification Conclusion Remarks Evaluation by Competent Authorities Use separate "evaluation boxes" to provide transparency as to the comments and views submitted EVALUATION BY RAPPORTEUR MEMBER STATE Give date of action Discuss applicant's justification and, if applicable, deviating view Indicate whether applicant's justification is acceptable or not. If unacceptable because of the reasons discussed above, indicate which action will be required, e.g. submission of specific test/study data COMMENTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATE (specify) Give date of comments submitted Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Discuss if deviating from view of rapporteur member state Page 28